ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 10.01.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 283 of 2001|217 of 2002, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 8 years and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000/- and in default of fine to undergo RI for a further period of two years. 3. The prosecution case, as per the written report of informant, the victim, PW-2, is that on 7th July, 2001 at about 11:00 a.m., she was alone at her house. Suddenly, accused Mukhtar Mian, found her to be alone, entered into her house and closed the door from inside and caught her and started molesting her. She started crying then he put the ‘anchal’ of her Sari in her mouth and thrashed her. Thereafter, he lifted her sari and saya and committed rape with her. It is further alleged that she wanted to escape from him, but the appellant being a male, she could not succeed. After committing rape, he threatened that if she will discuss this matter then he will ruin her life and fled away from there. When on the alarm the village people came there then she narrated about the occurrence to them. Thereafter, village people and her family members went in search and enquired about the accused in his house. The people assured them that after doing panchayati the matter will be solved. On the same day at about 6-7 p.m. a panchayati was held but accused Mukhtar Mian had not participated, then panches decided the matter with the order that accused will have to marry with informant. On the hearing of this decision, the father and brother of the accused suddenly stood up during the panchayat and went away to their house and drove away the accused from the village, therefore, the decision taken by the panches did not succeed. 4. On the basis of the said written report, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2001 was registered against the accused. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and the case was submitted to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. 4. On the basis of the said written report, Madhupur P.S. Case No. 129 of 2001 was registered against the accused. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken and the case was submitted to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. Prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses. Out of nine witnesses, PW-1 is Jaigun Bibi, mother of informant, PW-2, the victim is the informant herself, PW-3 Md. Sanaul, PW-4 Md. Suleman Mian, PW-5 Md. Nasir, PW-6 Samid Mian, PW-7 Md. Salu Mian, PW-8 Dr. (Smt.) Kumari Asha and PW-9 Ras Bihari Paswan is the IO of this case. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. PW-2 is the informant or the alleged victim. She deposed that on the day of occurrence she was alone in her house. In the mean time accused came there and found her alone, asked whereabouts of her mother. On which she told that she had gone towards village. Then the accused closed the door and felled her down and while she was crying, he climbed upon her body and lifted her sari and penetreated his penis in her vagina and committed rape up to ten minutes with her. He has also put the anchal of her sari in her mouth and threatened that if she will discuss the matter then he will ruin her life. Thereafter, he fled away from there after opening the door. She further stated that she has narrated the entire occurrence to her mother. She further said that on the same night a panchyati was held in her village but accused Mukhtar Mian had not participated, although his brothers and father participated. Panches decided the matter and ordered Mukhtar Mian to marry her, but they refused. She further said that she along with her mother and villagers went to police station to lodge the case but police had not registered her case. Thereafter, she went to local MLA Mr. Furkan Ansari. It is also started that Mr. Furkan Ansari had informed the police on telephone but police persons did not turn up. Thereafter again she along with her mother went to police station and narrated the entire story of occurrence which was recorded by the police and the present case registered. Thereafter, she went to local MLA Mr. Furkan Ansari. It is also started that Mr. Furkan Ansari had informed the police on telephone but police persons did not turn up. Thereafter again she along with her mother went to police station and narrated the entire story of occurrence which was recorded by the police and the present case registered. Police had also referred her to Hospital for medical investigation and she was medically checked up by the lady Doctor. In her cross-examination, she said that she went to the police station twice but police had not taken her statement, therefore, she appeared before the local MLA in his “Darbar Assembly”, after eight days of the occurrence and the MLA had given information to police about the occurrence on telephone then her case was registered at Police Station. She further said that in the panchayati 8-10 persons of her caste participated, her uncle Suleman was also present there. The panches asked her about the occurrence. The panches decided that accused should marry the victim. 7. PW-1, Jaigun Bibi, the mother of the informant supported the case of prosecution and corroborated the statement of informant PW-2. Although she is not an eye witness but she arrived after the occurrence and heard about the entire occurrence from her weeping daughter. This witness is a hearsay witness but her statement constituted a strong piece of circumstantial evidence corroborating the evidence of PW-2. 8. PW-8, Dr. Smt. Kumari Asha, had examined the prosecutrix on 21.07.2001. She proved the medical report marked Ext.1. She deposed that on the said date at 1 p.m. she examined the victim and observed that It is not possible to say whether rape had been committed or not. She had come after 14 days of alleged rape. She had not brought Petticoat worn at the time of assault. 9. PW-9, Ras Bihari Paswan was the IO of this case. He had proved the formal FIR marked Ext-2. He proved the endorsement made by officer-in-charge on the written report of informant which was marked Ext-3. He further said that he had inspected the place of occurrence. In cross examination, he admitted that he had not seized any cloth which was worn at the time of occurrence by the victim. He further said that the informant stated before him that her husband appears to be a mad person. 10. He further said that he had inspected the place of occurrence. In cross examination, he admitted that he had not seized any cloth which was worn at the time of occurrence by the victim. He further said that the informant stated before him that her husband appears to be a mad person. 10. P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were declared hostile. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has first taken us through the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and tried to point out some of the deficiencies in the prosecution case. She has pointed out from the evidence of P.W. 2 who is the victim that she has repeated that it was only after she had raised alarm that the village people had collected. Referring then to the evidence of P.W. 1 who is Jaigun Bibi, the mother of the victim she has pointed out that she has deposed that she had lodged case only after 18 days and that too after Furkan Ansari had intervened in the matter. This counsel says is revealed in paragraph 8 of her deposition. In para 11 it is deposed that no decision was taken in the panchyati and paragraph 18 the mother had deposed that her daughter was married to one Akbar prior to the incident. She refers to the evidence of doctor who is P.W. 8 and submits that she was examined by the doctor on 21.8.2001 and doctor has given opinion that it is not possible to say whether rape has been committed or not and there was no injury on her person. She has then referred to the evidence of P.W. 9 who is Ras Bihari Paswan who is the investigation officer or the I.O and pointed out from paragraph 2 that he had deposed that mother of the victim had not said him that her daughter had described the sexual assault in the manner in which it has been described. In para 3 the I.O. had admitted that no clothes were seized. 12. In para 3 the I.O. had admitted that no clothes were seized. 12. Summarizing her arguments, learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out that the date of occurrence is of 7.7.2001 at around 11 p.m. however, the FIR was lodged on 21.7.2001 that is after a long delay of 14 days and the FIR is based on written report and therefore it can be considered that there was much thinking over the incidents and it is a manufactured documents because grudge was held against the appellant. Counsel also pointed out that from the evidence it is revealed that the victim has stated that she only raised alarm after he fled, which means that there are no eye witnesses and it also raises the question as to why she did not raise alarm during the occurrence and prior to the occurrence because if she had raised alarm prior to the occurrence then the incident would not had happened as alleged and the appellant could not have been convicted for the offence that has been made out. Learned counsel for the appellant has also said that there is a delay of 14 days and it is said by the prosecution that in between the victim and her mother had gone to the MLA Furkan Ansari and after his intervention the case was lodged. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no documentary evidence whatsoever about the intervention of the MLA. There is no evidence of any letter or communication that he sent to the police station after which the FIR is said to have been lodged. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that no offence has been made out of rape or molestation or any incident of such nature because the doctor has himself categorically stated that it is not possible to say that rape was caused or not. Moreover doctor has indicted that there is no injury on her person or even on her private parts. Hence, it is not possible to say that rape had occurred at all and most probably it is only a figment of imagination. Learned counsel says that the witnesses from P.W. 3 to P.W. 7 have been declared hostile. These are the witnesses who have been brought on record by the prosecution itself and they have been declared hostile. Hence, it is not possible to say that rape had occurred at all and most probably it is only a figment of imagination. Learned counsel says that the witnesses from P.W. 3 to P.W. 7 have been declared hostile. These are the witnesses who have been brought on record by the prosecution itself and they have been declared hostile. Counsel says that they are independent witnesses and their testimony would have carried much weight. However, they have not supported the prosecution case only because there is no substance in the allegation itself. The I.O. of the case in para 3 of his deposition has stated that he has not seized any clothes or any other clothes she was wearing at the time of sexual assault. Counsel says that he was not able to seize it because no sexual assault had occurred and therefore no such clothes were given to the police for evidence. Counsel also adds that no other evidence that could have been seized is also not on record. Counsel for the appellant also says that the victim was already married prior to the incident and it is shocking to say the least that she or as the prosecution has submitted that after the panchyati was held she was willing to marry the alleged rapist. Counsel says that this is incredible because she was already married and in that situation, how she agreed to marry her with rapist and this is surely not believable and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed is not sustainable. She has also argued that regarding the panchyati there are no records whether the panchyati was held or not and moreover no member of the panchyat has been made a witness. Lastly she has argued that the cases is old one of the year 2001 and the alleged victim was considerably younger, and without admitting her guilt or without admitting the offence she prays for leniency in consideration of the case or decision is being made. ARGUMENTS OF THE APP 14. Learned counsel learned APP has on the other hand, argued that the delay of 14 days is fairly explained. He has first and foremost explained and presented that initially the background of the case must be gone into. ARGUMENTS OF THE APP 14. Learned counsel learned APP has on the other hand, argued that the delay of 14 days is fairly explained. He has first and foremost explained and presented that initially the background of the case must be gone into. He submits that in this case the victim and her mother are very poor people in fact the mother of the victim is a widow and her husband has died and she survives by begging. Counsel has said that the appellant seeing the helpless situation of the victim and her mother though victim is apparently under age took advantage of the same and raped the girl when she was alone. Counsel says that this is the background in which the case has to be viewed against the appellant. He has submitted that the delay is fully explained because of the poverty background of the victim and her mother and it is not that they had not sought to make report to the police but they had run from pillar to post including the police and the police had not registered the FIR. This was also precisely because the appellant came from economically and socially stronger background. Finally she went to the local MLA Furkan Ansari and it is stated that he had communicated to the police and thereafter only the things started moving and the case was registered against the appellant and therefore the delay of 14 days is fully explained. 15. Learned counsel has said that the panchyati took place on the same night which means that the victim and her mother had responded with alacrity. Nowhere has it come in the evidence or in the judgment that the panchyati was not held? In fact the panchyati is not questioned. Panchyati was only called for and at such time because it was done in an emergency and as per the evidence of the prosecution it was directed to the appellant side that the appellant has to marry with the girl and then they left the panchyati and disagreed to observe the conclusion of the panchyati. 16. Regarding the examination by doctor, learned counsel says that no injuries or evidences of sexual assault was found because she was only able to go to the doctor after the FIR was lodged. So there was even further delay in the examination. 16. Regarding the examination by doctor, learned counsel says that no injuries or evidences of sexual assault was found because she was only able to go to the doctor after the FIR was lodged. So there was even further delay in the examination. After such a long delay it was not possible to prove rape particularly when the girl is said to have been married earlier. The other evidences like semen stains or spermatozoa would not be surviving for so long. He argued that in a case of rape the version of the prosecutrix or the victim carries a lot of weight. In her written report informant has in detail described the time and place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence and even vividly described as to what had happened to her. In her evidence also she has fully supported and corroborated her written report and therefore as per the law that if the prosecutrix witness is otherwise truthful and reliable then her testimony can stand on its own feet and no other corroboration is required. Facts of the case is that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the victim. Counsel for the State also argued that even the mother has supported that soon after she had returned, her daughter had informed her immediately about the incident and also deposed as to what the daughter had narrated to her. Counsel also argued that the incident of MLA, Furkan Ansari is important in the light of the fact that the family came from a very poor background. So in any way they had no influence against the appellant. The fact that so many of the witnesses have become hostile only indicates the influence of the appellant side as against the influence of the victim. Therefore, if there is shortcoming even in the investigation by the police, then also it is explained it is so because of the social and economical standing of the appellants. That is why the version of the prosecutrix needs to be more believed and also because it is fully truthful and reliable and it has not been denied that they had gone to meet the MLA Furkan Ansari. That is why the version of the prosecutrix needs to be more believed and also because it is fully truthful and reliable and it has not been denied that they had gone to meet the MLA Furkan Ansari. It is not expected that a poor family and a poor victim would go to an MLA for any particular reason but that they had gone to the MLA simply out of desperation and as a last resort. But in this case being totally helpless they had gone to the MLA and it was only after that the administrative and police starts operating. FINDINGS 17. Having heard both counsels; having gone through the records of the case; the evidences and in the facts and circumstances, I observe that this is a case in which there is a single witness or eye witness, that is the victim herself who has claimed to be assaulted or raped by the appellant. She has in her written report alleged that on 7.07.2001 at around 11 a.m. she was present alone in her house when the accused Mukhtar Mian had entered, close the door from inside and raped her. She has described the assault saying that she was initially molested and then he had stuffed in her Sari in mouth and then lifting up her sari and saya committed rape upon her and thereafter the accused or the appellant herein had escaped. This mean substance of the story has been supported by the prosecutrix or P.W. 2 in her deposition. From her written complaint, and deposition I do not find any reasons to not trust her. It is well accepted that a woman will not make false accusations against a male person unless she has really been assaulted by him. Unless there are cogent reasons that go towards establish that she was otherwise motivated with certain ill intentions and malafide reasons, this Court does not see any reason given by the appellant which compelled to believe that she is a motivated accuser and she has not been assaulted by the accused or the appellant. 18. One of the ground taken by the appellant is that there has been gross delay of about 14 days in the lodging of the written report or the FIR. 18. One of the ground taken by the appellant is that there has been gross delay of about 14 days in the lodging of the written report or the FIR. This has been explained by the victim as well as counsel for the State by giving a background of poverty and marginalization and that she was or the mother of the victim tried to make out living simply by begging and both mother and the daughter were in a very vulnerable situation and susceptible to attacks or assault of various kinds. Therefore, the situation in which the family of the victim was one of utter helplessness and poverty and having no influence on the surroundings of the people around them, and it is in such situation that an assault on the person of the victim is made. In such a situation, their poor and marginalization situation itself may prevent them from reporting the incident to the police straight away, any way, it has come on the record that they had sought to go to the police but their complaint was not accepted by them and then she had gone to the local MLA, Furkan Ansari and complained to him. According to her, it was only after the MLA had then spoken or communicated to the police, after which they had gone to the police station and then their written complaint was accepted. The introduction of the MLA Furkan Ansari, in fact, makes the story of the prosecution or the victim in fact more believable. If the appellant really wanted they could have cross checked with the MLA, himself to deny the allegations that are made by this victim but this has not been done so. There is no reason why the name of an MLA will be dragged into the affair unless the case happens to be the true. So, I see that in the background of poverty and the police denying the recording of the complaint initially and thereafter only doing so after the local MLA has communicated to him has resulted in considerable delay and the FIR has been only lodged after 14 days, so the delay is totally explained. Moreover, the introduction of the name of the MLA, Furkan Ansari only gives more credibility to the complaint of the victim. Moreover, the introduction of the name of the MLA, Furkan Ansari only gives more credibility to the complaint of the victim. It would also indicate that the accused or the appellant herein was such influential people that it required the intervention of local MLA to get justice. 19. Regarding the panchyati which has been pointed out in the written complaint of the victim as well in her evidence is also important and from the records of the case and in the impugned judgment it does not appear that this is a concocted or manufactured claim. In fact, they had tried to respond immediately along with the help of the local people of the community tried to get the matter addressed through panchyati. However, it is seen that the father and the son who happen to be the brother of the appellant or not willing to consider the verdict of the panchyat and in fact they had walked out of the meeting. It only demonstrates the highhandedness attitude which also suggests that they were very comfortable with their influence they had in the area. 20. Regarding they being no evidence of sexual assault as given by the doctor, it can only be concluded that since the FIR was lodged after considerable delay of 14 days and then she was subsequently examined then it was unlikely that there would be any remaining evidence regarding the rape or assault. It has come from the informant written report as well as from her deposition that she had not resisted in such a manner that injuries would have resulted in her body. It is not unknown that out of fear a victim of rape simply possibly gets brutalized and makes no resistance. This is simply out of fear and she has stated that due to the appellant being a man, being the he had the physical strength to subdue her and therefore she had not resisted. There is also the argument by the appellant that she was already married and yet she wants to undergo the second marriage again. From the evidence that is on record, it is indicated that the mother and the daughter was living together, and therefore for whatever reasons, which is not apparent, the husband was not living with the victim. In fact, if the husband was around then she most probably would not have been raped and become victim. From the evidence that is on record, it is indicated that the mother and the daughter was living together, and therefore for whatever reasons, which is not apparent, the husband was not living with the victim. In fact, if the husband was around then she most probably would not have been raped and become victim. The appellant knowing fully well the situation of the victim and the family that only she and mother were living at the place where they were living took advantage of the situation and committed the assault on her. The agreeing to marriage of the victim with the person who has assaulted her has to be seen in this background. It is not unheard of in this country that it is suggested that the victim marry the person who has assaulted her in this situation, her agreeing to marry can be interpreted as an act of desperation. 21. Therefore, having gone through the records of the case and based on my aforesaid reasonings, I am not inclined to acquit the appellant. Accordingly Judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2003 and Order of sentenced dated 10.01.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Deoghar in Sessions Case No. 283 of 2001/217 of 2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of two years is sustained and upheld. Appellant’s bail bond is cancelled. Learned court below is directed to take steps for his arrest. 22. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.